Thursday, May 20, 2010

The Godless Labour Shadow Cabinet

Members of Parliament are obliged by law to swear allegiance to the Monarch before they may take their seats and draw a salary. Only Sinn Féin members refuse to conform to this requirement, though it has been known for republican-orientated members to swear allegiance with their fingers firmly crossed. But while allegiance to the Monarch is mandatory, MPs are given a choice on the divine dimension: they may either swear an oath ‘by Almighty God’ or they may simply ‘affirm’.

It has been observed that there is a distinct divide between the Libservative and Labour frontbench teams.

A clear majority of the Government frontbenchers swore allegiance under the religious form of the oath, while the Labour Shadow Cabinet was dominated by those who chose to affirm their loyalty in a secular form.

The majority of the Cabinet, led by David Cameron, took the oath: one by one they made a solemn declaration on pain of divine or preternatural wrath:

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg declared:

I do solemnly, sincerely and most and affirm I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

Oliver Letwin was the only other Coalition frontbencher to affirm using the non-religious oath. Senior Liberal Democrat figures Vince Cable, Danny Alexander, David Laws and Chris Huhne all opted for the religious oath.

But the Shadow Cabinet revealed their godlessness as the Almighty was set aside. David Miliband, Alistair Darling, Harriett Harman, Alan Johnson, Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Bob Ainsworth and John Denham all successively chose to ‘affirm’ rather than ‘swear’ allegiance.

During the swearing-in process, one backbench MP was caught on microphone observing: "Presumably in other times in our history the oath has been used to work out who is Catholic, who is Anglican, and all that?"

"Or who's religious and who's not," the clerk suggested.

It was, of course, nothing to do with discerning who is ‘religious’, and the Clerk really should have known better. Religious restrictions in the oath effectively barred individuals of certain faiths (Roman Catholics, Jews and Quakers) from entering Parliament for many years. But servants of the Crown have sworn allegiance to the Monarch since Magna Carta. Over the centuries this developed into three distinct oaths: of Supremacy (repudiation of the spiritual or ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prince, person or prelate); of Allegiance (declaration of fidelity to the Sovereign); and Abjuration (repudiation of the right and title of descendants of James II to the throne).

In 1953, the Queen swore on oath at her Coronation ‘to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom according to their laws and customs’. She promised ‘to maintain to the utmost of (her) power the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed religion established by law’. She declared, with Bible in hand: ‘The things I have here before promised I will perform and keep. So help me God.’

In swearing this, she committed herself and the Crown-in-Parliament to uphold the supremacy of Scripture. Thus every Member of Parliament swearing their Oath of Allegiance, while not being constrained in their individual conscience to profess the Christian faith, is declaring their commitment to defend biblical Christianity. Allegiance to the Queen must, at the very least, demand a defence of her oaths and promises to her subjects.

Thus those Members of Parliament who opt simply to ‘affirm’ their allegiance are, in fact, dedicating their lives to upholding the institution of Monarchy and therefore to defending the Coronation Oath.

Ergo, whether they ‘swear by Almighty God’ or ‘affirm’, MPs are making a formal declaration of the supremacy of the Protestant Reformed religion established by law.

76 Comments:

Interesting and provocative post, Archbishiop! It probably needs a constitutional expert to decide whether you are correct in saying that MPs, by swearing or affirming allegience to the Queen, are also commiting themselves to upholding the Coronation Oath. From the simple words used, I would very much doubt it - but I'm no constitutional expert.

I am sure, however, that it does not follow that just because an MP has refused to swear the oath he or she is godless. Many Christians believe that Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount excludes the swearing of oaths in God's name.

'Thus every Member of Parliament.... is declaring their commitment to defend biblical Christianity'

Which puts them immediately at odds, one might argue, with the Protestant Reformed tradition, a political construct as it was, 'established by law' (always makes me chuckle that last bit), and against biblical teaching (Matt 16:18).

Oh I know you have the theology and the verbiage to refute this Cranny, and if you're anything like your moniker then you'll have an unmatched capacity for earnestly facing two opposing ways at once - my point is simply that there are contradictions, as there are bound to be, and the best way to overcome them in this instance is not to be overly dogmatic about it all, and certainly not to imply that any swearing in of MPs is implicit recognition of the supremacy of the Protestant Reformed tradition.

Your Grace.Although the actions of NuLab have been decidedly non christian during their time in government, I would not say that choosing to affirm marks them out as non believers. The Lord told us not to swear by anything on Earth or in Heaven, but simply to let our yes be yes & our no be no. On the basis of this I have several times chosen to affirm rather than swear on oath when appearing as a character witness for different people.

Seriously ... do some people think the reason that so may of the Labour front bench didn't swear the oath is because they have such high view of scripture that they didn't want to find themselves contravening the Lord's teachings on oath making?

Still, I suppose it is better that they have not sworn the oath than to break the 3rd commandment.

James Miller.True enough, & if thats the reason for them to affirm then one hopes they know what they don't believe in. When I chose to affirm I made sure that my reasons were known, thus a negative became a positive. Many people just go with the flow, follow the line of least resistance, but many find themselves in troubled waters for their lethargy. One hopes that they find a lifeline before they go over the falls.

Graham Davis.Great, then let's hope that the men of honour in the Commons, will serve us all well, irrespective of their personal beliefs or affiliations. As you so rightly observe - Only time will tell.

Q. How can you compare a Christian democracy with an Islamic theocracy?

A.When Cranmer uses terminology such as the supremacy of the Protestant Reformed religion established by law

How can an unelected Head of the CoE and of The State really be a democratic concept if other Xtians such as Catholics or non Anglicans are excluded from the line of succession. This is nothing less than the product of tinkering with the ridiculous principle of the Divine Rule of Kings.

And what makes an Anglican Head of State and Church more legitimate than would a Catholic, Methodists or a Mormon?

Edward the 8th and his arrogant aristos, would have willingly signed the fate of this nation over to the Nazis in 1938 to save 'us' from socialism - How democratic is that?

My point of comparing the Taliban etc is that they also believe that they act at the command and with the authority of their god too. They believe in their faith in the same committed manner as the Xtians in theirs.

Why is the Monarch not allowed to formulate or deny their own dietific relationship, without recourse to forcibly abdicating the throne? How is this Democratic? Why can't the Monarch vote?

As for religion - One religion is the same as any other in my opinion and merely the equal distillation of superstitious nonsense - it all depends who has the military might to endorse it and impose its authority on the populace.

Mixing the concept of religious supremacy with 21stC democracy does not make any more sense than do the illogical institutions like the Islamic theocracies, Tibetan Budhism or even Shintoism.

It’s wonderful to see atheists making formal declarations of the supremacy of the Protestant religion established by law.

And it’s good to know that the atheists posting here carry coins bearing the image of our sovereign and the words on the rim of pound coins: ‘"Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith".

Do you now think that weight is given to your beliefs because the money in an atheists pocket make a statement of faith?

Or because an atheist is forced to speak some words in order to serve the people?

Does that really make your belief any more true or do you believe that the atheists actually believe by proxy, because surely if they really lacked belief then they would refuse to use money, or become a politician.

'As for religion - One religion is the same as any other in my opinion and merely the equal distillation of superstitious nonsense'

This pretty much sums up why your arguments are so weak. If I were to say that all atheists are the same; merely the equal distillation of a superstitious faith in the supremacy of science, whilst not actually having any knowledge of it, would you not protest?

There are many different philosophies; theist and atheist. You only lump all theist philosophies together because it makes it easier to claim that Christianity is corrupt because of the actions of Muslims. Hence why the common retort is to tarnish atheists with Communism and Fascism.

'How can an unelected Head of the CoE and of The State really be a democratic concept...'

It isn't. We don't live in an absolute democracy, we live in a parliamentary democracy. Mob rule is worse than aristocratic rule. What we have is a compromise. Perhaps your atheist philosophy is in the ideal of democracy, just as some believe in the ideal of communism, anarchy or absolute monarchy. Governmental systems operate with imperfect people, so there is no perfect system. Don't say that something is wrong, just because it doesn't conform to your ideal; your ideal may just be wrong.

And it’s good to know that the atheists posting here carry coins bearing the image of our sovereign and the words on the rim of pound coins: ‘"Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith".

I had never noticed that before. I wish you hadn’t pointed it out as I will have to spend the rest of the afternoon filing of the offending message from all my pound coins before I put them back into circulation!

The present Queen is probably a good Head of State, she is well informed and may offer wise council, so why is it essential to get rid of her?

To rely on the hereditary line of the Windsor’s to provide a constant supply of Heads of State is plainly ridiculous and is an insult to our democracy. The only way to ensure the legitimacy of that office is for it to be decided by democratic election.

The monarchy is an anachronism but as many seem still to be fond of it, so let them keep the palaces but not their income from the State. And let’s do this before Nutty Prince Charlie takes over. Let him talk to trees and grow even richer from the sale of his Duchy Originals. But keep him well away from the levers of power; he has already over stepped the mark by intervening in planning applications.

And Mr Singh...

De-edge surely but point taken. And no scribbling from the likes of you when Prof Dawkins appears on the £5 note!

Would you say that if a man who is swimming says he doesn't believe in water then it is not water that he is floating in?

Mr Graham Davis,

How silly you are! What on earth is wrong with the Queen's image on our coins? Better a marvellous monarch without taint of corruption, obliged to her people through a sense of duty, than some self-serving politician who has clawed and lied his way to the top.

Why will you people not give credit where it's due? What dark destructive motive compels you to deny the truths of existence and believe things contrary to the evidence before your eyes?

On what basis do you say the monarchy is an 'anachronism'?It plainly works better than anything else, so why do you want 'democratic legitimacy'?

What magic is there in having a plebiscite if it yields rulers who are like the last lot, incompetent, deceitful and destructive?

What on earth do you think is good about elections that so clearly produce people to rule us whom you despise?

If the monarchy didn't pay tax they wouldn't need state support.

And Prince Charles's planning intervention seems to have prevented an abomination, so what's wrong with that? If the heir to the throne does good and the elected politicians do bad does that make the former wrong and the latter right?

Mr Walling in few brief sentences you have revealed your anti-democratic credentials.

philip walling said...

On what basis do you say the monarchy is an 'anachronism'?It plainly works better than anything else, so why do you want 'democratic legitimacy'?

Perhaps you would prefer members of House of Commons to be appointed on a hereditary basis?

What magic is there in having a plebiscite if it yields rulers who are like the last lot, incompetent, deceitful and destructive?

Democracy is a bad form of government but it is the best we have.

What on earth do you think is good about elections that so clearly produce people to rule us whom you despise?

On the contrary I think there are many decent, honourable men and women in public life, I obviously have a higher opinion of my fellow human beings than you.

If the monarchy didn't pay tax they wouldn't need state support.

I am beginning to think that you may be a Royal yourself Mr (or is it Viscount) Walling. Perhaps I too should pay no tax?

And Prince Charles's planning intervention seems to have prevented an abomination, so what's wrong with that? If the heir to the throne does good and the elected politicians do bad does that make the former wrong and the latter right?

An abomination says who, a poorly educated inbred with no knowledge or understanding of the arts?

You really do live in a topsy-turvy world of your own creation.

No I live in the real world, no magic, no fairies and preferably no Kings and Queens.

One point in reply:'democracy is a bad form of government but it is the best we have'

No, it plainly isn't if I can point to a better.It's just a trite modish phrase (Churchill came up with it didn't he?) to allow elected politicians a cloak of protection and to excuse their incompetence.

And how dare you refer to Prince Charles in such a way? Insulting someone is not an argument. And 'the arts', what on earth do you mean by that?

I am a Christian and I most certainly would not swear an oath, as it forbidden by the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

Matthew chapter 5 vv 33-37

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

also James 5 v 12

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Those politicians that have chosen not to be hypocrites, and pretend that they know God, and are willing to uphold his will and his ways, are in a far better place than those who will say one thing and then do another.

philip walling said...No, it plainly isn't if I can point to a better.

I am intrigued, what system did you have in mind?

And how dare you refer to Prince Charles in such a way? Insulting someone is not an argument. And 'the arts', what on earth do you mean by that?

A bit rude but factually correct.

Rather than start a new discussion on the meaning of art, the point surely is that Charles should not intervene privately in a planning application with the result that it was withdrawn. His objection should have been public and carried no more weight than any other interested party. What happened in the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment was nothing short of scandalous.

I think you may have been wanting to direct your comment at Graham rather than me when you said:

"I think people actually need to contribute something to this country before they appear on banknotes."

As I made no mention of it, so I assume you were replying to his point about Dawkin's appearing on a banknote.

But I completely agree with what you said. Which is why I can't understand why the queen should adorne our currency since all she has actually done for herself of merit was to be born into privilege. Not really a skill or something to be congratulated on if you ask me.

"Would you say that if a man who is swimming says he doesn't believe in water then it is not water that he is floating in?"

Seems a silly statement to make to back up your point. The man can believe he isn't in water, he can convince all his friends he isn't swimming in water, he can even write a book concerning the fact that it isn't water he is swimming in, however if all the available scientific evidence points to the fact that he is in the water then his beliefs certainly aren't true until he can at least provide scientific evidence to challenge it.

Lakester said:-If I were to say that all atheists are the same; merely the equal distillation of a superstitious faith in the supremacy of science, whilst not actually having any knowledge of it, would you not protest? - and you offer this pathetic drivel as your understanding of a strong argument? LOL!

I was talking to a High Anglican friend last week who expressed the view that there are two types of people: the sheep and the goats. The one is capable of accepting objective truth, whereas to the other everything is relative (filtered through the prism of his own ego) and between them there is a great gulf fixed.What is your view?

Scientific equations break down when they keep arriving at infinity, infinity being unscientific, for this they substitute a pseudo-science of quantum unprovable and now we see it now we don't imponderables.

Yet the spiritual mind can visualize in the very symbol for infinty, a yin, yang, plus and negative principal.

Everything coming from nothing, since everything could not possibly exist, unless there was nothing in the first place to stop it.

A man sat neath a tree pondering life in a meditative state, was approached by a fellow of scientific research.

"What are you doing" asked the scientist

"Contemplating why the tree exists" answers the man

So the scientists goes away and invents many new fangled contraptions, he discovers many things photosynthesis, biological dependance, molecular structure, curatives and much much more, to the benefit of mankind.

Armed with all this, he returns to the man neath the tree, with his revelations.

I think your grace highlights what the problem has been all along with the remnants of new Labour , dont believe in god ! The rather twisted society we have today doesnt really work , so if the proof that god doesnt exist manifest in a failed post 13yr socialist totallitarian regieme , i think its adeqaute time elapsed for the experiemnt to be proved a failiure.

Perhaps I should pray for these people to seek Gods mercy rather than the loss of the countrys wealth at our expense .

Not that there are likely any Methodists left in their Mother Country, but they in good conscience may not "swear oaths" but must rather affirm in obedience to their belief that the Lord Jesus so commanded when He said, "But I say to you, do not swear at all: ... But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." Matthew 5:33,37

I'm not making any claims for your godless leadership, merely stating that refusal of the "religious" oaths could well be made on religious grounds.

Your Grace, a little pastoral awareness should always be applied to big questions like this. Nick Clegg for instance regularly accompanies his wife to church,assents to his children being brought up as Roman Catholics and took a Sunday off in the campaign to celebrate the first communion of one of his children. Oliver Letwin has admitted that one of the greatest sadnesses of his life was that the philosophy he read at Cambridge became the acid that destroyed his Jewish faith. Similarly John Denham is open in his support for "faith groups" with whom in social projects he often works alongside. None of these,and hopefully others among the naysayers, are despisers.

I was at this time of living, like so many Atheists or Anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with Him for creating a world.C.S. Lewis

Bryan at 23.37 - Methodists are alive and kicking up here in Northumberland. However, have they not recently returned to the C of E fold??? Is that what you meant? Our local Methodist groups seem to have merged with the regular Church. Certainly they alternate their services between Chapel and Church. Forgive my ignorance on this matter, I may be wildly off the mark with all this?

Well 'among the nations' round here one can probably find not only sheep and goats, but rich and poor, spotted and less than immaculate, RC and Protestant, High Anglican and 'radical' Puritan, Atheist and Theist, splitters of infinitives and non-splitters :), et cetera.

Likewise our "representatives" will be wise and foolish, some of whom clearly can't tell right from left, or who would rather have a whipped vote on who is to decide whose right and left is to prevail. Methinks, btw, that the Left have rather beefed up the pov of that old goat Siggy.

Methinks also, that nowadays the left/right bit relates to Tyrants like Ol' Rumpy who, on account of the Lefty Dialectic, don't want other cats - let alone the and rats and mice -* to see the difference between L&R. Which is to say that Oswin is right about Old Henry being right.

Others were right when they further freed us from tyranny by evolving constitutional monarchy - it worked until the Lefties developed a 'scientific' model for abusing it by lying... which they dub 'pragmatism' while refusing to separate 'expediency' from the 'practicable.'

So I say the whole problem about the oath is: How can we separate lying MPs from truthing MPs?

Which of these oath-takers prevaricate, and which operate 'in a general honest thought [of] common good to all'?** This land has long known a principle that supports the latter thought. It is: if Christian Rulers keep their oaths, then both they and the people can devote their loyalty (directly or indirectly) to the One Almighty God. Then cats don't need bells, mice don't eat up men's malt, and rats don't tear men's clothes to shreds. That's why we've been able to 'do bet' at governing ourselves, for so long.*

And why diving's now nearer than the horizon?

*Pace Langland: Piers the Plowman and his 'Fair Field Full of Folk.' (Prologue).

I am one of those Americans who lurk and occasionally stir up trouble, so it is my ignorance of the Church in the UK which my post reflects. But that was actually beside the point, the point being the rather trivial offering that Christians could in good faith object to the "Religious" or any other oath on grounds of conscience with at least some modicum of Biblical support.

I was raised a Methodist in America, so I took the chance that the original Methodists would share this particular peccadillo.

Mr Singh, I thank you for a serious attempt to answer my question without recourse to the usual insults. Quite worthy.

However the fact that I can see the rain from the inside of my porthole window suggests to me that if I went outside I would get wet. I know this to be true from my previous experience. I had been proven to me that water will make me wet, probably chill me and make my clothes uncomfortable to wear.

The time on the watch is merely a representation of of a man made construct of measurement created by mankind to order those of our daily actions usually superfluous to living on a planet rotating in a 24 hour orbit around the sun. Convenient to know, but not crucial, as we cannot influence it's course in any way.

Take the Maasai for instance have no need of the Western time construct, they go in time with their cattle and the sun the moon and the seasons. These are 'time' proven practicabilities created to support life as they experience it.

I understand and except that there is much about the world and indeed the universe that I will never understand nor to survive - need to. I am content.

I have no desire or indeed reason to believe that this is not the only life I will experience. I am not greedy for life and in that also I am content.

No person on earth has yet proved the existence of extra-terrestrial life but the probabilities suggest to me that here is such a thing. There may well be life forms beyond our primitive comprehension that we simply would not recognise by today's standard of knowledge. But if we ever do it will be because of a physical presence that our earthly bodies sense.

I cannot say the same for accepting the possibility of the existence of a divine creator based on ancient myths; told, retold, translated,re-translated, contextualised, revised, etc, etc, as being reason enough to convince me of even the possibility that this may be a truth.

If there was such a being he would not need the aid of humans of varying intellect and ability to be required to explain His/Her/Its presence or importance - they, I sure would undertake that small task all by themselves from the point of conception.

We don't, as such, have a great need for 'biblical support' within the Church of England...it is part organic, part construct; designed to free God from the persistence of zealots, lunatics and martyrs.

It is generally considered a jolly good idea all round; and, as God is indeed an Englishman, easy on the soul. The C 0f E accepts that God is 'unknowable' and leaves him to get on with it. God appreciates this enlightened attitude and thus exercises a quid pro quo lenience in return.

English Methodists, by their nature, have a few problems in allowing God such a free-hand.

By no means excessive 'God-botherers' themselves, they nevertheless expect a greater return for their Sunday collection-plate.

God, being tolerant enough, up to a point, doesn't let this get Him down unduly. Which is why He has welcomed them back into the Anglican fold; albeit on an alternate Sunday arrangement.

Methodists, being as equally fond of cucumber sandwiches and Church garden-fetes, as are members of the C of E, are thus regarded by God in like favour.

However, God is probably not a particular fan of 'happy-clappers' and other religious extremists.

Neither, truth be told, does He have much truck with excessive 'joyfulness' ... after all, a little boredom of a Sunday is surely a civilising thing?

One final point, God doesn't drink lager ... he prefers his beer brown.

I hope that this may have cleared up a few points for you; feel free to ask as you will.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)